More moves at the top at the Wall Street Journal. In two memos to the staff, editor Robert Thomson announces that Deputy Managing Editor Laurie Hays is leaving the paper. He then announces the creation of a "central news desk" helmed by three new Deputy Managing Editors: Matt Murray, Mike Williams, and Nikhil Deogun. In a face-saving move, ethics editor Alix Freedman "will have expanded authority as a defender of the paper's ethical and journalistic standards," rather than being axed. Left up the air: the future of DC bureau chief John Bussey, who had been rumored to under consideration for a promotion. Full memos after the jump.

Wired magazine is celebrating its 15th anniversary this year, with much reflection and self-congratulation. But one strange thing: in its very first issue in 1993, Wired ran an article that had already run under a different byline in a different magazine. A tipster provides evidence that an article in that issue about Japanese computer hackers by Karl Taro Greenfeld ran almost verbatim a year earlier-under a different byline-in Tokyo Journal. Furthermore, Greenfeld ran another article on the same subject in the LA Times Magazine, in which he describes one computer hacker identically to how he had described a different computer hacker in the Wired piece. Something seriously weird is going on here. [UPDATE: We now have a note from Karl Taro Greenfeld, saying that he is the author of all the pieces in question, and explaining the byline discrepancy, which is posted below. An explanation of what happened here-and key portions of all the stories in question-after the jump].

Billionaire corporate raider Carl Icahn launched his very own blog in January, with the totality of its content being the words "Blog coming soon." This caused the NY Post to put a clock on its website counting the minutes until Icahn actually posted something, just because they knew it would be annoying. But now Icahn says he's finally set to post his first entry, about corporate accountability, today. A rich guy talking directly to you—so exciting! Right now it just says "This page is parked free, courtesy of GoDaddy.com." But we know it's gonna be awesome! [NYP]

• Tim Russert's son, Luke, asked Barack Obama and John McCain to sit next to one another at his father's funeral Wednesday. They complied, and listened as he urged them and the rest of the mourners to "engage in spirited debate but disavow the low tactics that distract Americans from the most important issues facing our country." [Times]

The discerning readers of Perez Hilton's site, which features cum stains, genitalia and unborn babies drawn crudely onto paparazzi photos, were shocked when the celebrity gossip today launched a tasteless plan to enrich himself through the suffering of others. Hilton's "Gossip On The Go" phone-call service costs $5 per month and threatens "you'll be hearing from us almost every day... whenever something big happens." His commenters called the plan "too expensive," "tacky and presumptuous," and "quite possibly the stupidest thing i've ever heard." Also, Hilton himself (real name: Mario Lavandeira) was called a "sell out" about a thousand times, as though he had once possessed a reserve of dignity and credibility, and is now trading it in. Here are some of the more interesting comments from PerezHilton.com, followed by an email from an "avid" Perez reader who is defecting to Gawker.

Novelist Keith Gessen, having been ridiculed here and elsewhere on the Web over the past week, is still trying to take back the internet from mean people. But he just had a sudden, happy epiphany, in which he realized that these vicious critics are not really being mean to him but toward their own caricature of him. They're just "bored at work" and are trying to have fun, so they imagine Gessen to be the juicy target they crave and lash out. "So, it's cool," the very important intellectual wrote. (He later rephrased this as, "You know, whatever.") Gessen is so relieved that the internet meanies don't hate him (just the distant, imagined "him") that he's invited us all to his place, or at least his workplace, for a big Friday night bash! Our nice, in-person selves will "take back the internet" from our anonymous-behind-a-keyboard selves! Bring your kittens and so forth!! Time/place, along with a longer explanation of why Gessen is so totally over you, after the jump.

Look, it's an adorable polar bear, roaming free in an ice field! Awww. But, wait, why is the BBC using it to illustrate their lead story about President Bush's renewed push for offshore oil drilling? Because Bush is also calling for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which could be allowed by Congress, and then there could very well be (33-51% chance!) an oil and gas "leak," which in turn could hurt polar bears. This wouldn't be media bias, would it? Choosing this distantly, arguably related photo instead of, say, a shot of an oil rig? Or of Bush? Oh, right, it is bias, but it's the kind only POLAR BEAR HATERS get upset about.

It's a tangled web. Liberal-ish MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews hates liberal convert blog-runner Arianna Huffington because of a feud between Huffington and center-liberal deceased NBC journalist Tim Russert, whom Matthews idolized (and who never cared for Matthews). Why? Where did this all begin? It all started with a terribly nasty Vanity Fair piece written back in 1994 by Maureen Orth, Tim Russert's wife. The piece is about Michael Huffington, who almost bought himself a seat in the US Senate back when he was married to Arianna. This story helped end his political dreams, won Orth an award or two, and caused bad blood that lasted up until the day Tim died. And we have awesome clips from it!

Think of how easy it might have been to understand Arianna Huffington's bloggy animus toward Tim Russert if there were a book out chronicling all the sordid details of their decade-and-a-half-long secret feud. (There is.) Every gossip-mongering gadabout should know the full backstory on every spat, falling out, and long-running mutual antagonism in media. Below are the volumes no shelf should be without.

Sports reporters are making bank. Some of them, at least. While foolish idealistic journalists shell out cash to go to J-school and get petty jobs reporting on corporations or wars or political campaigns, a handful of lucky guys sit around spouting completely unverifiable opinions on ballgames and burning $100 bills to fuel their tailgating barbecues. A few of these people-who do nothing that an average American male does not do every weekend, for free (yap about sports)-are making millions. Millions, we say! The Big Lead has a list of the (estimated) top earners in sports journalism, which we have assembled into a handy chart, after the jump. Contemplate the fact that the 15 highest-paid reporters average close to $1 million per year; then go read Deadspin to find out how many of these guys are pricks.

Recently, we met the Media Bloggers Association, supposedly a group that provides legal aid to bloggers and one that is currently negotiating with the Associated Press to establish guidlines for reposting tiny snippets of their copy. Our night editor asked who died and made them Internet Kings, and they responded with a bitchy email that said we didn't even email them or anything. Then a couple enterprising commenters did some more research (and not the "email them for comment" kind either-what is up with the internet?). And now we have reason to be suspicious of everything the MBA and their head troll Roger Cox have to say. They might just be a money-making scam!

Intimate look at the New York Times alert! The paper has launched a social networking feature called "TimesPeople," which is a little like Facebook for Times employees (and the public!). But without any of Facebook's drunk pictures or other interesting features. Pictured, what editor Bill Keller is up to: not a damn thing. The only useful aspect of TimesPeople is that newsroom brown-nosers can track the Times in-crowd by keeping tabs on Keller's list of friends. He only has seven now, but one of them is Batman:

MTV has decided to try the novel strategy of actually running some music videos on their network, something that hasn't been seen there since the inception of The Real World. But they've added an annoying, faux-modern twist in their new show FNMTV (ha): not only will they show music videos, they'll provide a place for homemade insta-response videos made by you, the viewer. Sound asinine? Oh, it is. But everybody has something to say and deserves to say it momentarily on MTV. And it has great interactive appeal, especially if you're interested in talking burritos, dimly lit karaoke clips, and an earnest analysis of the Pussycat Dolls by some dude with a beard:

CBS News Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan showed up on The Daily Show last night to bum us all out. Seriously, she "cracked" some "jokes" but they were too dark to laugh at, and she always sounds so deadly serious in her little English South African purr. So then she gave up on jokes and said the wars were miserable and CBS News executives should be the first against the wall. Basically we're all terrible people, you see, and then she shamed Jon into basically saying The American People Themselves have abandoned their responsibilities. We can't imagine what Logan has against the American TV news! Her own network ran a totally compelling story just today on the state of the war between boys and girls. One of the most awkward Daily Show interviews ever, attached.

The Juergen Teller shots of Victoria Beckham for Marc Jacobs' spring ad campaign were met with the usual awed glee when they were released earlier this year. But now there's a backlash! Liz Jones, a columnist at the Daily Mail, is worried that these ads "sum up just what's WRONG with high fashion." Specifically, she thinks the ads are "cruel," because they amount to an in-joke by the photographer and stylists to make Beckham appear gawky and helpless without the aid of Jacobs' fabulous fashion. Well, we do agree the ads are dumb. But Jones' accusation that they show Beckham "seemingly worshipping at the altar of designer fashion" is an equally dumb tautology. And while we applaud her confessional tone about being a slave to designers, it appears that someone has slapped this columnist upside the head with the "Obvious Day" stick:

Michelle Obama, loving and chronically sarcastic wife to presidential candidate Barack Obama, is co-hosting lady show The View today. She opened by terrorist fist-jabbing all her co-hosts! She is smart and funny and friendly and regular, and none of that will stop people from calling her a constantly aggrieved radical or whatever. Though between today's hosting duty and her US Weekly cover, she's obviously on a charm offensive. For the first time in our adult life, we're proud of daytime television and tabloid magazines.

OK! is the celebrity magazine that is the most willingly manipulated by celebrity flacks, which is really saying something. So it's perfectly appropriate that the magazine just promoted sleazy former celebrity uberflack Rob Shuter to its executive editor position. That's because Shuter is skilled at doing the two things that OK! is most famous for: lying on behalf of celebrities, and losing other people's money. Even he, the great fabulist, couldn't write a more sickening script than this.

The revolutionary information age is great and everything, but it makes crime a really big hassle. In the McCarthy era, they ran down the Reds by tracing their anti-American magazine subscriptions. Dragnet cops could storm into the library to demand a suspect's list of books borrowed. But now criminals use the internet, and its treasure trove of crime information is an equally rich source of evidence against those who access it. We've already seen a Facebook update lead to a murder-suicide. And now, the latest entrant in the annals of "Bad Things To Do Online": Google "How to kill with a knife," and then murder your wife and child:

Is it a mark of progress that our national ads can now feature characters that are far more foul-mouthed and offensive to white bread America than in times past? I'm inclined to say yes. The Times considers the rise of Family Guy characters as beloved ad icons, even for wholesome brands like Coke and Subway. But hey, sometimes they say things on that show that are funny! Times are changing, you see, and these cartoon characters are just acceptable enough to squeeze into the mainstream under the rubric of "edgy." Since this is a hugely popular TV show on the Fox Network that is just the next in a long line of "edgy" cultural moments, you could correctly call this an antiquated discussion (even for the olds). The real question is: will Americans stand for a fat, ignorant cartoon father telling them how to eat their meat?